Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #27

[Blackmill]

[...]

Excellent portability & scalability: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162857973161/lebron-james-impact-diminishing-returns-compared

The ability to be almost purely additive with no downside: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162035208506/individual-offense-is-not-more-important-than

And is historically scarce: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162019505846/individual-offense-is-not-more-important-than

[...]

I'm glad you posted these links since I had no idea you were a writer. I'll have to read through your past content at some point. I was actually about to make a thread on the matter -- that is, on the additivity of defense -- since I felt as essentially a sub-topic it didn't get all the focus it deserved. Not to become off-topic, but as a concept that has influenced the voting in this thread, I was wondering if you don't mind answering a few questions:

1. I wish there was some conceptual explanation for why defense might be more additive than offense. Looking at the example you provide:



Let’s go back to the original example I used, of a +6 offensive player vs a +5 defensive player... Suppose your weakest link is a +3 offensive player. If you replace him with the +6 offense player, who let’s say plays the same position, how much will the team’s offense improve (in rough terms)? Will it improve by +6? Will it improve by +3? Of course it’s a complicated question, but the answer is very likely no to either number... But in the same type of example, if you replace a +2 defensive player by a +5…you’ll see a LOT more of the value transfer through.




I can't escape how replacing every instance of "defensive player" with "offensive player" yields an equally sensible statement. Thus, I don't feel this example illustrates why defensive impact might be more additive than offensive impact. Rather, I think it's a general statement about impact. Setting aside any statistical evidence, why do you think defensive impact is more additive than offensive impact? How would you frame such an argument when defensive skills can often be interpreted as counters to offensive skills, and seemingly, the two are mirrors?

2. Do you think it's possible that the empirical additivity of defensive impact, compared to offensive impact, is because greater collections of offensive talent have been assembled? That is, perhaps teams are more likely assemble a (projected) +15 offense than a (projected) +15 defense, and thus the diminishing returns to offensive impact is present at a greater degree? If I had my computer working, I would be trying to answer this myself, but currently I cannot.

[Winsome Gerbil]

FYI I say this all under the context that you seemed to dismiss Howard being over Ewing as if it were unthinkable. I'm not sure who I'd pick ultimately right now, but Howard over Ewing seems perfectly reasonable.

I do to some degree. I consider Dwight Howard to largely be a paper tiger compared to the great centers. A pretty boy with beach muscles but not the all around talent or grit of the true legend level centers. A modern invention worshipped by people who don't remember what the real centers used to look like. He had very little offensive ability. His TS% is a blatant distortion. A joke based on rolling to the hoop, alley oops, and offensive follows. You can't even compare him to guys like Ewing or Hakeem. You couldn't build an offense around him -- you put him in the middle of the offense. And he never had to play anybody the other way. He was a great help defender, but he would have been squished like a bug on Shaq's backside. There were few nightly wars for him. Maybe a handful against Yao when he was young, and Cousins when he was old. Otherwise he never had to face a massively productive center and got to just sit back there playing goalie while ignoring the Joakim Noahs and Timofey Mozgovs of the world being trotted out as centers during his prime.

Dwight being considered #2 in the MVP voting for one single year was a bit of good timing -- the whole Duncan/Nash/KG generation of former MVPs was aging out, and LeBron nuked himself and Wade with the Miami move -- and also again a question of optics. If Ewing puts in one of his prime Knicks years during that same year he'd have a great chance for similar consideration. But Patrick played in the centers' decade, and so he was always going to be capped as an MVP guy, because how could he be the MVP when he wasn't even the best guy at his own position? Dwight on the other hand other got to claim the "best center" title as a data point just by default.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Ewing
Alt: Curry

I feel compelled to restate my thoughts on Curry vs Durant here which I know is a little awkward given the vote for Ewing.

In a nutshell, aside from the fact that all the impact stats give Curry the nod over Durant, I have an issue with granting Durant a major longevity edge here given that Durant accomplished nothing significant before Curry entered the league, and since then, well, Curry has become the nucleus of a core so awesome that Durant gave up on the core that OKC tried to build around him. There's really not much of a question of who has cemented their legacy more from a team or fan base perspective.

Back to Ewing. Comparing him with Curry is very hard and my opinion isn't set in stone, but I do see Ewing as something close to a complete package and I'm reluctant to put such young players ahead of him.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[penbeast0]

I think this is a great post. If someone thinks Bill was better than a player like Wilt, then I think a lot of the inflated records of the celtic's other guys has to be questioned (and I think we have evidence to do so). That said I do have to pause with Cousy was who and MVP. How do you explain that one away? Was it because he was a normal sized white guy? was that a peak year and then he declined? I can ignore all nba awards in a tiny tiny tiny league at what was then the least important role, but an MVP?

(a) Cousy was a great player in the years prior to Russell; but the league was changing rapidly and his shooting style couldn't keep up (Russell's relative efficiency dropped badly too; if he'd been valued as a 2-way star rather than just the defensive GOAT, his value would have dropped too). However perceptions tend to lag a bit.

(b) Cousy from 57 on had a run of consistently disastrous shooting in the playoffs. The team won anyway.

(c) Cousy style players are arguably always overrated . . . flashy high volume scorers (with weak efficiency and defense) tend to be in my opinion. He was the equivalent of Allen Iverson type and Iverson won an MVP too in a year where I don't think he was that caliber a player.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Patrick Ewing

Vote 2 - Scottie Pippen

I’m just going to address some of the themes (for the lack of a better word) that revolved around ewing during his career.

He came up in one of the best eras for centers the game has ever seen. There are the obvious all time greats such as hakeem, robinson, and towards the later part of his career shaq. Then you had his georgetown counterparts in mutombo and mourning as well as guys like parish, divac, willis, smits, sabonis, daugherty, etc. On top of competing with these guys for accolades like all NBA and all defensive team, he had the tall task of being the focal point on offense going up against them on a regular basis.

And that leads me to the story of ewing’s career: He never had a consistent all star caliber 2nd option in his prime. The knicks were essentially forced to run the offense through him as he was their only option. Starks was a talented player who would go to war for you, but for every few games he went off, you’d end up with a shot happy poor shooting night. Many times, the knicks would end up winning these games in spite of that due to ewing’s stellar play.

Was Ewing a hyper efficient elite offensive player? Not quite, but he would turn into a great offensive force with impressive athleticism for a guy his size. As his athleticism waned, he developed more of an outside game, and while his efficiency would decrease, you could still go to him late in games if you needed a bucket. You can also attribute his decrease in efficiency in the playoffs to defenses locking in even more on him due to the lack of other options.

I’m sorry, but the notion that he actually brought his teammates down offensively to the point where they would’ve had a significantly greater impact without him is irrational. If ewing was ever fortunate enough to play with another great player, he would’ve taken advantage of it just fine. When he finally got the opportunity to play for a championship in 94, he just so happened to face his ultimate match in hakeem. By no means am I guaranteeing a championship if he faced the likes of barkley, stockton and malone, or david robinson, but the outcome may have been different.

Ewing and the knicks played jordan’s bulls as well as anyone back then, but just couldn’t get over the hump. While teams from other eras certainly prevented players from winning championships, jordan had a major effect on those guys from the 90s. Those knicks teams were built on defense, and while there’s no question ewing had great defensive players around him, he was the anchor nonetheless. NY’s defensive RTG ranks from 92-99:

92 - 2nd
93 - 1st
94 - 1st
95 - 1st
96 - 4th
97 - 2nd
98 - 4th
99 - 4th

Top 5 defense for 8 straight seasons and best in the league for 3 straight? That’s damn impressive any way you slice it. 92 was riley’s first year as head coach, and he found a way to manage all these strong personalities (mason, oakley, mcdaniel, starks, harper, etc.) and help them channel that towards performance on the court.

Where I struggle with the last part of your argument is that I still think Oakley was the heart of that defense. Sure Ewing was the better player, but I honestly think Oakley was an Isiah Thomas like personality for that team. I wasn't a knicks fan and it was the dark days of cable tv, so am I wrong? Was ewing really a locker room hero? To me it was Oakley's heart and soul that made that defense, and Ewing was just the "talent" if you will.

I don't buy that era was a super era for centers either. A super era for centers with long careers perhaps, but centers dominated the game from the 50's on till about now. Ewing being this high moves him past guys like Reed, Cowens, McAdoo, Walton, and Unseld who were all MVP level centers. Cowens, Reed, and Unseld all played together, and all won MVP's but I'm supposed to move Ewing over all of them?

The MVP's from 65-79

Russell, Wilt, Unseld, Reed, Kareem, Cowens, McAdoo, Walton, and Moses. That was THE center era, so the argument that centers were better in the 90's seems false. The question is if you think the 90's as a whole were the best decade by a mile. I've asked this over the Ewing fans, but I don't think I've gotten a direct answer. If you think the 90's were just by far the best era, then that's a reasonable case for Ewing. All be it, I think your second pick Pippen had a far better career, the rest of your argument for Ewing at last seems reasonable for him over Pippen.

I actually addressed some of these things in the last thread in response to you, but to be honest you seem to wildly underrate ewing. We're past the top 20 now where those guys were the elite of the elite, and anyone at this point is going to have SOME questions...

Note i said ONE of the best center eras, not the best center era. He has a very strong argument to round out the top 10 centers of all time, and you seem to not even think he's really in the conversation. It's just odd to me. And while oakley was certainly a huge part of the heart and soul of those teams, ewing flat out led by example. Similar to the way Dr. J was the NBA, he was the knicks for 15 years. He played hurt for years with huge ice packs on his knees, which really showed dedication to his team (something i admired stockton for, although you never knew it with him until years later).

As for dwight, he's going to the HOF and he peaked very highly, but the downward spiral of his career clearly puts him behind ewing to me. Not to mention that when he went to the finals in 09, he had a better offensive team around him than ewing ever did in his prime.

[oldschooled]

Which brought more to the table...Ewing's defensive anchoring or Curry's offensive anchoring? Curry's impact won the Warriors their 1st title since Rick Barry. Then tell me what would be Pat's case over Curry? Longevity alone? You must value longevity VERY HIGH on your formulas/criteria if you think Pat has a case over Curry. PEAK, impact, accolades, MVP shares, etc. You name it and Curry will still be on top.

[dhsilv2]

Vote 1 - Patrick Ewing

Vote 2 - Scottie Pippen

I’m just going to address some of the themes (for the lack of a better word) that revolved around ewing during his career.

He came up in one of the best eras for centers the game has ever seen. There are the obvious all time greats such as hakeem, robinson, and towards the later part of his career shaq. Then you had his georgetown counterparts in mutombo and mourning as well as guys like parish, divac, willis, smits, sabonis, daugherty, etc. On top of competing with these guys for accolades like all NBA and all defensive team, he had the tall task of being the focal point on offense going up against them on a regular basis.

And that leads me to the story of ewing’s career: He never had a consistent all star caliber 2nd option in his prime. The knicks were essentially forced to run the offense through him as he was their only option. Starks was a talented player who would go to war for you, but for every few games he went off, you’d end up with a shot happy poor shooting night. Many times, the knicks would end up winning these games in spite of that due to ewing’s stellar play.

Was Ewing a hyper efficient elite offensive player? Not quite, but he would turn into a great offensive force with impressive athleticism for a guy his size. As his athleticism waned, he developed more of an outside game, and while his efficiency would decrease, you could still go to him late in games if you needed a bucket. You can also attribute his decrease in efficiency in the playoffs to defenses locking in even more on him due to the lack of other options.

I’m sorry, but the notion that he actually brought his teammates down offensively to the point where they would’ve had a significantly greater impact without him is irrational. If ewing was ever fortunate enough to play with another great player, he would’ve taken advantage of it just fine. When he finally got the opportunity to play for a championship in 94, he just so happened to face his ultimate match in hakeem. By no means am I guaranteeing a championship if he faced the likes of barkley, stockton and malone, or david robinson, but the outcome may have been different.

Ewing and the knicks played jordan’s bulls as well as anyone back then, but just couldn’t get over the hump. While teams from other eras certainly prevented players from winning championships, jordan had a major effect on those guys from the 90s. Those knicks teams were built on defense, and while there’s no question ewing had great defensive players around him, he was the anchor nonetheless. NY’s defensive RTG ranks from 92-99:

92 - 2nd
93 - 1st
94 - 1st
95 - 1st
96 - 4th
97 - 2nd
98 - 4th
99 - 4th

Top 5 defense for 8 straight seasons and best in the league for 3 straight? That’s damn impressive any way you slice it. 92 was riley’s first year as head coach, and he found a way to manage all these strong personalities (mason, oakley, mcdaniel, starks, harper, etc.) and help them channel that towards performance on the court.

Where I struggle with the last part of your argument is that I still think Oakley was the heart of that defense. Sure Ewing was the better player, but I honestly think Oakley was an Isiah Thomas like personality for that team. I wasn't a knicks fan and it was the dark days of cable tv, so am I wrong? Was ewing really a locker room hero? To me it was Oakley's heart and soul that made that defense, and Ewing was just the "talent" if you will.

I don't buy that era was a super era for centers either. A super era for centers with long careers perhaps, but centers dominated the game from the 50's on till about now. Ewing being this high moves him past guys like Reed, Cowens, McAdoo, Walton, and Unseld who were all MVP level centers. Cowens, Reed, and Unseld all played together, and all won MVP's but I'm supposed to move Ewing over all of them?

The MVP's from 65-79

Russell, Wilt, Unseld, Reed, Kareem, Cowens, McAdoo, Walton, and Moses. That was THE center era, so the argument that centers were better in the 90's seems false. The question is if you think the 90's as a whole were the best decade by a mile. I've asked this over the Ewing fans, but I don't think I've gotten a direct answer. If you think the 90's were just by far the best era, then that's a reasonable case for Ewing. All be it, I think your second pick Pippen had a far better career, the rest of your argument for Ewing at last seems reasonable for him over Pippen.

I actually addressed some of these things in the last thread in response to you, but to be honest you seem to wildly underrate ewing. We're past the top 20 now where those guys were the elite of the elite, and anyone at this point is going to have SOME questions...

Note i said ONE of the best center eras, not the best center era. He has a very strong argument to round out the top 10 centers of all time, and you seem to not even think he's really in the conversation. It's just odd to me. And while oakley was certainly a huge part of the heart and soul of those teams, ewing flat out led by example. Similar to the way Dr. J was the NBA, he was the knicks for 15 years. He played hurt for years with huge ice packs on his knees, which really showed dedication to his team (something i admired stockton for, although you never knew it with him until years later).

As for dwight, he's going to the HOF and he peaked very highly, but the downward spiral of his career clearly puts him behind ewing to me. Not to mention that when he went to the finals in 09, he had a better offensive team around him than ewing ever did in his prime.

I will go check the last thread. I may have missed your post. If so I apologize for repeating myself, I know that can be annoying.

I think top 10 is reasonable for center careers, but I think it's high. We're at 27 which means if he's 10th, that we rank 37% of the top 27 as centers. Maybe that's right, but I'm not sure. My bigger issue is in the top 30 I expect a higher peak relative to the league AND I as I have said think a guy who was only once seen as a top 4 MVP guy is a bit out of line with so many MVP's on championship teams left. As time passes the quality of each rank should go up. 15 years ago he might have been a top 30 guy.

I'm ok with ewing over howard. I simply took issue with the idea that it was dismiss-able by the other poster. I think Howard has a better peak. I think Ewing's career however was longer with more quality seasons. I consider them pretty close, but I might give Ewing the nod myself, but I'd have to think about it more.

Ewing was the knicks as well, but Ewings peak was 90 right? Their defensive era started post peak, which is your argument for him. I think Oakley was their defensive heart. Ewing was clear unquestionably their best player still, but I think giving him so much credit for their defensive era is overrated Ewing and underrating Oakley for me. BTW when I think knicks I think of their 70's era. Honestly, I think he gets a lot of credit because he was in a big market.

Ice packs and what not, a lot of players have played hurt. I respect that about Ewing.

All this said, to save me time and to make the point again in this thread as this might be the Ewing thread.

Were there 90's by FAR the best era for the nba? This will be the I think 4th (malone, barkely, stockton) peer of Ewings to get in without a title and with Robinson only getting his as a second tier guy. That's an insanely high thought of that era. Was that era that much better than others? I think we need that discussed in the thread ewing gets in with if he's top 30.

[dhsilv2]

I think this is a great post. If someone thinks Bill was better than a player like Wilt, then I think a lot of the inflated records of the celtic's other guys has to be questioned (and I think we have evidence to do so). That said I do have to pause with Cousy was who and MVP. How do you explain that one away? Was it because he was a normal sized white guy? was that a peak year and then he declined? I can ignore all nba awards in a tiny tiny tiny league at what was then the least important role, but an MVP?

(a) Cousy was a great player in the years prior to Russell; but the league was changing rapidly and his shooting style couldn't keep up (Russell's relative efficiency dropped badly too; if he'd been valued as a 2-way star rather than just the defensive GOAT, his value would have dropped too). However perceptions tend to lag a bit.

(b) Cousy from 57 on had a run of consistently disastrous shooting in the playoffs. The team won anyway.

(c) Cousy style players are arguably always overrated . . . flashy high volume scorers (with weak efficiency and defense) tend to be in my opinion. He was the equivalent of Allen Iverson type and Iverson won an MVP too in a year where I don't think he was that caliber a player.

So as an aside as we move on. What is the value of shot creation? I struggle with this myself. Their is a value in those who can create a shot even if it is not effective. Iverson gets underrated by stats guys because they ignore that he took a team to the finals where he was the only viable shot creator. That said we tend to not value the volume shooters who weren't effective. I think there's a missing element here and I don't know how to explain or quantify it, but I also feel like when you see it you know it. Glenn Rice or Mitch richmond, not so great. Iverson great. I haven't seen enough Cousy (not a lot of video) but he was seen as an MVP. I have to think there was a value there that Richmond or others like him didn't have.

[Lou Fan]

You've essentially got the same list of upcoming candidates as I do (except you don't have Cousy at all; and I've got him and Elgin before any other remaining candidates.

As to "any insight"; I'd suggest you check out my post just above yours.
I'd add to that post of mine that, while I treat the best players at each position as "transferable" to any other decade; the way I "adjust" for what I consider a steadily increasing DEPTH of top talent, is by giving "Points" to 3rd-Team selectees (with slightly increasing "Points" each decade - up to my current level of 60% the number of points for 3rd-Team selectees that I give to 2nd-Teamers (who get 60% of 1st-Teamers: so: 1st-Team = 5 "Points", 2nd-Team = 3 "Points"; 2010's 3rd-Team = 1.8 "Points")

How this works out for a few players players:

Cousy (40.5 "Points", GOAT #3 PG)
Baylor (46.2 "Points", GOAT #4 SF)
Barry (42.5 "Points", GOAT #5 SF)
DHoward (31.4 "Points", GOAT #7 Center)
Gervin (31.3 "Points" GOAT #4 SG)
Ewing (23 "Points", GOAT #9 Center)
Others below Gervin (in my INITIAL "Points" order, down to about GOAT #50) :
Schayes, Kidd, Payton, AI, Pippen, Frazier, TMac, Isiah, Westbrook, Tiny, Moncrief, Jerry Lucas, Hal Greer, Paul Westphal.

Your formula has Dwight Howard ranked above Patrick Ewing in GOAT #center points. Methinks your formula might need some tweaking.

Semi-seriously, I think the error lies in insufficient era/competition correction. Playing in the 90s with Ewing and the boys, Dwight would never have won a single 1st Team All NBA, and may not even have nabbed a DPOY, although he would have joined a ridiculously crowded field in the running there.

What is the case for Ewing over Howard? Howard was a far more dominate player. He was a far better just on paper non career defender. Offensively he played in a tougher era for big men and was still reasonably effective. Honestly I think howard has a great case over Ewing.

8x all nba (5x first team)
3x DPOY
Ewing is 55th all time in VORP and Howard is 57th (which begs why they're being talked about in this thread)
Ewing is 40th in WS Howard is 44th (again why are we talking about these guys already?)
Howard 37th all time in PER Ewing 50th

Best MVP vote Howard 2nd Ewing 4th.

Howard's peak was better, his accolades are better, and his career stats are close. The only argument against him is era. But if we drop the all nba piece and just talk about the quality of the league (MVP clearly doesn't care if you're big or not) then I'm not sure anyone would rank Ewing era above Howards and if so I haven't seen the case yet. I think their playoff success is relatively the same as well. Both took their team to the finals as the best player. The only difference is Howard beat Lebron to get there. Ewing didn't beat jordan (1 and 3 in our rankings).

Prime Howard was a menace. He is the most disrespected HOFer I can remember. When the dust settles and we don't give a crap about his debacles with the Lakers and Magic I think we will put him higher on the list. The guy was carried a pretty weak team to the finals. He was the best defensive anchor of the late 00s and no one since has been as good (Gobert is getting there). The man was a MONSTER ATHLETE. Now everyone hates on him so much and he got traded for Bellineli and Plumlee and a trade down in the second round. He gets no respect. He is still definitely a top 50 player in the league and is probably top 40. He's still a monster rebounder and a very good defender and he's underrated offensively, he had his highest ts% ever this year, though he clearly has declined. He makes the Hornets the 5-6 seed this year provided everyone stays healthy. He is the leader in defensive rating for his career among ALL active players. Bob Ryan said he doesn't think Howard belongs in the HOF he said, "It's not even a discussion, Hall of Fame? Oh please." That is INSANE. Give the man some respect. While I'm not considering him yet I fully expect to support him before we get into the 40s. Probably between 35-39.

[Lou Fan]

Contenders for this spot: Kidd, Payton, Curry, Durant, Drexler, Pippen, Baylor, Ewing, Gilmore.

Kidd: I'm really considering him here because of drza's post. He's an elite defender and rebounder at his position and obviously an ATG player/passer on the fastbreak. He took the Nets to back to back Finals while leading the team in points, assists, and steals. The big drawback for Kidd is his lack of a pull up jumper. He just never learned how to score off the dribble, except layups/dunks, and that really hurt his teams in the halfcourt. 87% of his 3s were assisted on which clearly shows he wasn't creating his own jumpers. I do value his championship as a valuable starter on the Macs. He's my number 1 guard after Curry

Payton: I can't put him here quite yet because of playoff fails particularly the Denver series, but he is really underrated and deserves a mention.

Baylor: Same as Payton. His low efficiency and his taking shots from West docks him even more.

Drexler: I can't put him over Durant because he has similar longevity but with a lower prime/peak imo.

Durant: I have some bias against him for going to the Warriors so that sways my opinion a little bit. The RAPM numbers really concern me and his efficiency numbers and box score stats are a little inflated especially this year having played with Curry. I watch him play and the eye test tells me this as well. His box score overstates his value.

Pippen: He was the perfect Robin. He is one of the greatest if not the greatest wing defender ever and a great rebounder as well. He was one of the original point forwards his 8 assists per 100 possessions for his career is extremely impressive. He was just the perfect compliment to Michael Jordan. His athleticism allowed him to physically dominate matchups and get some pretty awesome posterizers. I have no doubt he could have been a good number 1 on a team (His Portland teams were good and his one year as the man on the Bulls was great) but I'm not sure if he could win one as the man. This might be a little too early for the greatest number 2 of all time but if now now very soon.

Gilmore: Impressive prime but not enough team success to overtake Ewing who was just a better more impactful player.

Ewing: One of the greatest defensive anchors ever with a very good offensive game. Great floor-raiser and likely would have won at least one championship if he had more help. He almost one the 94 Finals as the only star and if he does there is no doubt in my mind he'd already be selected. People are too harsh on Ewing and I think he probably already should have been selected. For more look at trex's posts they are amazing.

Steph Curry is the choice for me here because his 3 year peak 2015-now has been unbelievable. He started a dynasty won multiple MVPs and his impact stats are ridiculous. Top 5 peak all time with 5 seasons of prime that have all been very good. His 2016 season was off the charts amazing and he should have won the ring without the bogus draymond suspension and all the injuries they had including the one to Curry's knee. His last 3 seasons have gone ring, 73 wins, ring. His gravity on the court is ATG. His gravity is probably second to only Shaq and Wilt. I value peak over longevity. My reasoning is would you rather have a guy who was the capability to be an MVP/top5 player in the league and be the best player on champ for 5 years (ie Curry) or someone who can lead you to the playoffs every year and probably can't lead a team to the finals for 12 years (ie someone like Bob Cousy).
Example of Gravity

1st Vote: Curry
Trex swayed me 2nd Vote: Ewing

I am changing my vote to
1st Vote: Curry
2nd Vote: Pippen

[Dr Positivity]

-- I'm hesitant to put too much weight on WS and DWS for current players (in my opinion, they are too influenced by team factors and aren't a reliable assessment of an individual player), but I consider them almost worthless for players in that early era when stats were a skeleton of what we have available today. Looking at how B-R.com calculates win shares (https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html), it's apparent that it's the bluntest of tools for seasons prior to 1974 and that defensive win shares is based solely on the team's defense, so that each player gets 1/5 of the defensive credit for the team's performance, which means a pedestrian defender like Cousy suddenly has stellar DWS once Russell arrives.

-- MVP shares is another complicated metric for that era. The award was voted on by players until 1980, and while Russell and Chamberlain won most MVPs during their time because their dominance from an individual and team standpoint was undeniable, racism played a part in the pecking order, as did good old-fashioned collusion. For example, even though Wilt won the MVP in his rookie season, he didn't win again for another six seasons despite arguably some of the most statistically dominant seasons in league history. In 1962-63, Wilt averaged 44.8 pts and 24.3 reb on 52.3 FG%, all league highs, yet he got zero first place votes and only 9 out of a possible 505 MVP points, good for 7th in MVP voting behind Red Kerr (15.7/13.0/47.4%). The fact that Baylor did as well as he did in MVP voting is a testament to how well-liked and respected he was around the league in addition to being a great player.

Yes both are not perfect but we have limited resources to go with, no RAPM, no eye test. In the case of Baylor and Pettit in 61, Pettit has 6.5 DWS and Baylor 5.7. Pettit is the main big man on the #2 ranked defense, overall based on position and team rank it seems to pass the sniff test reasonably well that Pettit would rate as having higher defensive value that year. There are examples of where WS in those years looks way off (eg. a guy like Kenny Sears looking awesome) but MVP voting helps weed out some of those WS frauds as is the case in modern day when a non superstar like Chandler or Deandre shows up in top 5

As for the Wilt example you used, the 63 Warriors had a disastrous season so it's unsurprising he doesn't show up in MVP voting that year much like how 2016 Harden only finished 9th. And considering all the MVPs from 61-65 are Russell and Oscar it's not because of racism he was snubbed.

As I said I don't know who is better between Pettit and Baylor their first 5 years, but between how peers viewed them and a stat like WS that at least attempts to put all in one boxscore both of which favor Pettit marginally (and for what it's worth, even though it's a crappy stat, PER also goes to Pettit who leads every year 56-59), there is more than enough reason to think at worst it's a toss up, and IMO Baylor needs to be a lot better than Pettit in those years to make up for the latter gap

-- Regarding Baylor's low FG% relative to West, having an effective one-two combo made each of them more effective. Yes, West had the better percentage of the two, but that's partly due to Baylor's ability to collapse the defense around the basket. While it's fair to argue that West should've gotten more shots than Baylor based on FG%, that doesn't mean that West should've gotten the lion's share of the shots or that West was willing to take those additional shots. Also, we don't have ORBs from those days, but Baylor's propensity to shoot near the rim and his exceptional rebounding ability meant that he scored many times after rebounding his misses, which means a lower FG% but a high rate of conversion for a particular trip down the floor. Baylor wasn't like Moses, just throwing the ball up so he could go get it, but he was very good at following his shot.

-- Regarding Baylor's FG% relative to the league, here's a comparison.

Year - Baylor FG% - League FG% - Diff
58-59 - 40.8 - 39.5 - +1.3
59-60 - 42.4 - 41.0 - +1.4
60-61 - 43.0 - 41.5 - +1.5
61-62 - 42.8 - 42.6 - +0.2
62-63 - 45.3 - 44.1 - +1.2
63-64 - 42.5 - 43.3 - -0.8
64-65 - 40.1 - 42.6 - -2.5
65-66 - 40.1 - 43.3 - -3.2
66-67 - 42.9 - 44.1 - -1.2
67-68 - 44.3 - 44.6 - -0.3
68-69 - 44.7 - 44.1 - +0.6
69-70 - 48.6 - 46.0 - +2.6

Now look at a comparison of TS%.

Year - Baylor TS% - League TS% - Diff
58-59 - 48.8 - 46.3 - +2.5
59-60 - 48.9 - 46.3 - +2.6
60-61 - 49.8 - 46.9 - +2.9
61-62 - 49.2 - 47.9 - +1.3
62-63 - 51.9 - 49.3 - +1.4
63-64 - 48.7 - 48.5 - +0.2
64-65 - 46.3 - 47.9 - -1.4
65-66 - 45.6 - 48.7 - -3.1
66-67 - 49.1 - 49.3 - -0.2
67-68 - 50.5 - 49.8 - +0.7
68-69 - 50.0 - 49.1 - +0.9
69-70 - 53.7 - 51.1 - +2.6

Note: I didn't include his last two seasons, when he played a total of only 11 games.

First off, Baylor's FG% is above league average 7 of 12 years. He has a rough patch starting with the 1963-64 season, when his knee problems started, but he adjusted his game over time and improved from the low of the 1965-66 season, which followed his knee injury in the 1965 playoffs.

From a TS% standpoint, Baylor looks even better because he was very good at drawing fouls (nine seasons in the top 10 for FTA). Baylor was above league TS% average 9 of 12 seasons, and for his seasons below average, the difference isn't as dramatic as it is for FG%.

For someone who scored as much as Baylor, his efficiency is very good. Just because West was better doesn't mean Baylor was bad. Add in Baylor's ability to rebound and convert his own misses and I don't think it's fair to criticize Baylor from an efficiency standpoint.

The 7 out of 12 and 9 out of 12 stat includes his first 5 years, where I think everyone can agree his combination of volume and efficiency was excellent. My criticism is more reserved for the post knee problems Baylor, where his TS toggles between below average and barely above the rest of the 60s. As for volume scoring because he falls to 25-27ppg after his knee surgery and because it's at a higher pace, he's also more of a very good than spectacular volume user at that point, further compounding the issue with mediocre efficiency. This is not average efficiency at Melo/Nique volume, it's a level or two below

[Dr Positivity]

Vote: Patrick Ewing

I want to dive into some players like Kidd, Gilmore and Payotn, but going to have to make this short for this threat due to time constraints. Excellent baseline of value due to elite defense at the C position, and a very good offensive career with scoring numbers and floor spacing making up for lack of passing. Good longevity and plays hard. I agree with the criticism there is little evidence of ELITE (as in MVP caliber play) and he's hanging more around the Pippen and Havlicek tier down, but in the case of Durant and Curry longevity makes up some of the difference, and with Durant impact stats suggest he may not have been quite MVP caliber either.

2nd: Kevin Durant

[Dr Positivity]

Vote 1 - Patrick Ewing

Vote 2 - Scottie Pippen

I’m just going to address some of the themes (for the lack of a better word) that revolved around ewing during his career.

He came up in one of the best eras for centers the game has ever seen. There are the obvious all time greats such as hakeem, robinson, and towards the later part of his career shaq. Then you had his georgetown counterparts in mutombo and mourning as well as guys like parish, divac, willis, smits, sabonis, daugherty, etc. On top of competing with these guys for accolades like all NBA and all defensive team, he had the tall task of being the focal point on offense going up against them on a regular basis.

And that leads me to the story of ewing’s career: He never had a consistent all star caliber 2nd option in his prime. The knicks were essentially forced to run the offense through him as he was their only option. Starks was a talented player who would go to war for you, but for every few games he went off, you’d end up with a shot happy poor shooting night. Many times, the knicks would end up winning these games in spite of that due to ewing’s stellar play.

Was Ewing a hyper efficient elite offensive player? Not quite, but he would turn into a great offensive force with impressive athleticism for a guy his size. As his athleticism waned, he developed more of an outside game, and while his efficiency would decrease, you could still go to him late in games if you needed a bucket. You can also attribute his decrease in efficiency in the playoffs to defenses locking in even more on him due to the lack of other options.

I’m sorry, but the notion that he actually brought his teammates down offensively to the point where they would’ve had a significantly greater impact without him is irrational. If ewing was ever fortunate enough to play with another great player, he would’ve taken advantage of it just fine. When he finally got the opportunity to play for a championship in 94, he just so happened to face his ultimate match in hakeem. By no means am I guaranteeing a championship if he faced the likes of barkley, stockton and malone, or david robinson, but the outcome may have been different.

Ewing and the knicks played jordan’s bulls as well as anyone back then, but just couldn’t get over the hump. While teams from other eras certainly prevented players from winning championships, jordan had a major effect on those guys from the 90s. Those knicks teams were built on defense, and while there’s no question ewing had great defensive players around him, he was the anchor nonetheless. NY’s defensive RTG ranks from 92-99:

92 - 2nd
93 - 1st
94 - 1st
95 - 1st
96 - 4th
97 - 2nd
98 - 4th
99 - 4th

Top 5 defense for 8 straight seasons and best in the league for 3 straight? That’s damn impressive any way you slice it. 92 was riley’s first year as head coach, and he found a way to manage all these strong personalities (mason, oakley, mcdaniel, starks, harper, etc.) and help them channel that towards performance on the court.

Where I struggle with the last part of your argument is that I still think Oakley was the heart of that defense. Sure Ewing was the better player, but I honestly think Oakley was an Isiah Thomas like personality for that team. I wasn't a knicks fan and it was the dark days of cable tv, so am I wrong? Was ewing really a locker room hero? To me it was Oakley's heart and soul that made that defense, and Ewing was just the "talent" if you will.

I don't buy that era was a super era for centers either. A super era for centers with long careers perhaps, but centers dominated the game from the 50's on till about now. Ewing being this high moves him past guys like Reed, Cowens, McAdoo, Walton, and Unseld who were all MVP level centers. Cowens, Reed, and Unseld all played together, and all won MVP's but I'm supposed to move Ewing over all of them?

The MVP's from 65-79

Russell, Wilt, Unseld, Reed, Kareem, Cowens, McAdoo, Walton, and Moses. That was THE center era, so the argument that centers were better in the 90's seems false. The question is if you think the 90's as a whole were the best decade by a mile. I've asked this over the Ewing fans, but I don't think I've gotten a direct answer. If you think the 90's were just by far the best era, then that's a reasonable case for Ewing. All be it, I think your second pick Pippen had a far better career, the rest of your argument for Ewing at last seems reasonable for him over Pippen.

True but you seem to be focusing on overrepresentation of 90s players, when I feel it's the lack of 70s players that's really alarming. I don't know what to do with it because their cases don't seem that strong, but it's hard to believe it represents only 2 of the top 30 players in history

[Winsome Gerbil]

Vote 1 - Patrick Ewing

Vote 2 - Scottie Pippen

I’m just going to address some of the themes (for the lack of a better word) that revolved around ewing during his career.

He came up in one of the best eras for centers the game has ever seen. There are the obvious all time greats such as hakeem, robinson, and towards the later part of his career shaq. Then you had his georgetown counterparts in mutombo and mourning as well as guys like parish, divac, willis, smits, sabonis, daugherty, etc. On top of competing with these guys for accolades like all NBA and all defensive team, he had the tall task of being the focal point on offense going up against them on a regular basis.

And that leads me to the story of ewing’s career: He never had a consistent all star caliber 2nd option in his prime. The knicks were essentially forced to run the offense through him as he was their only option. Starks was a talented player who would go to war for you, but for every few games he went off, you’d end up with a shot happy poor shooting night. Many times, the knicks would end up winning these games in spite of that due to ewing’s stellar play.

Was Ewing a hyper efficient elite offensive player? Not quite, but he would turn into a great offensive force with impressive athleticism for a guy his size. As his athleticism waned, he developed more of an outside game, and while his efficiency would decrease, you could still go to him late in games if you needed a bucket. You can also attribute his decrease in efficiency in the playoffs to defenses locking in even more on him due to the lack of other options.

I’m sorry, but the notion that he actually brought his teammates down offensively to the point where they would’ve had a significantly greater impact without him is irrational. If ewing was ever fortunate enough to play with another great player, he would’ve taken advantage of it just fine. When he finally got the opportunity to play for a championship in 94, he just so happened to face his ultimate match in hakeem. By no means am I guaranteeing a championship if he faced the likes of barkley, stockton and malone, or david robinson, but the outcome may have been different.

Ewing and the knicks played jordan’s bulls as well as anyone back then, but just couldn’t get over the hump. While teams from other eras certainly prevented players from winning championships, jordan had a major effect on those guys from the 90s. Those knicks teams were built on defense, and while there’s no question ewing had great defensive players around him, he was the anchor nonetheless. NY’s defensive RTG ranks from 92-99:

92 - 2nd
93 - 1st
94 - 1st
95 - 1st
96 - 4th
97 - 2nd
98 - 4th
99 - 4th

Top 5 defense for 8 straight seasons and best in the league for 3 straight? That’s damn impressive any way you slice it. 92 was riley’s first year as head coach, and he found a way to manage all these strong personalities (mason, oakley, mcdaniel, starks, harper, etc.) and help them channel that towards performance on the court.

Where I struggle with the last part of your argument is that I still think Oakley was the heart of that defense. Sure Ewing was the better player, but I honestly think Oakley was an Isiah Thomas like personality for that team. I wasn't a knicks fan and it was the dark days of cable tv, so am I wrong? Was ewing really a locker room hero? To me it was Oakley's heart and soul that made that defense, and Ewing was just the "talent" if you will.

I don't buy that era was a super era for centers either. A super era for centers with long careers perhaps, but centers dominated the game from the 50's on till about now. Ewing being this high moves him past guys like Reed, Cowens, McAdoo, Walton, and Unseld who were all MVP level centers. Cowens, Reed, and Unseld all played together, and all won MVP's but I'm supposed to move Ewing over all of them?

The MVP's from 65-79

Russell, Wilt, Unseld, Reed, Kareem, Cowens, McAdoo, Walton, and Moses. That was THE center era, so the argument that centers were better in the 90's seems false. The question is if you think the 90's as a whole were the best decade by a mile. I've asked this over the Ewing fans, but I don't think I've gotten a direct answer. If you think the 90's were just by far the best era, then that's a reasonable case for Ewing. All be it, I think your second pick Pippen had a far better career, the rest of your argument for Ewing at last seems reasonable for him over Pippen.

True but you seem to be focusing on overrepresentation of 90s players, when I feel it's the lack of 70s players that's really alarming. I don't know what to do with it because their cases don't seem that strong, but it's hard to believe it represents only 2 of the top 30 players in history

I feel like Rick Barry has grown criminally underrated over time.

That said the gap between him and other players in his same position range is nowhere near big enough to get really excited about.


P.S. BTW, as to the earlier post in that sequence...Bill Russell entered the league in 1956. Walton and Moses entered the league in 1974. It's a real stretch to call all the players over that range part of the same generation, so yeah, maybe if you collected every great center from the first 30 years of the league they would be able to equal the 90s group. But the 90s group was pretty cohesive generation-wise, entering the league between 1984 (Hakeem) and 1992 (Zo/Shaq), and there's no other generation where so many all time centers were all in their primes facing off with each other every night.

[Bad Gatorade]

Vote: Patrick Ewing
2nd: TBD (hopefully soon)

Reasoning - in a nutshell, elite ATG level defensive anchor who provides above average to really good offense. The other guys I'm considering don't have the longevity (Steph, KD), the offensive game to match (Dikembe, Thurmond), or their impact just wasn't in the same level long enough IMO (Kidd/Pippen/Payton/Elgin/Westbrook/etc.).

Others I'm considering after him are Steph, KD, Dikembe, Thurmond, Kidd, Pippen, GP, Baylor, Westbrook, Havlicek, Frazier, Barry, Reggie, Gilmore, Drexler.

I know that's a long list, but the short list for me right now is probably Curry, Dikembe, Thurmond, Pippen, Kidd, Durant.

Any insight would be really helpful!

Just wanted to say, props for mentioning Mutombo - we all know he was a great defender, but the statistical imprint that we have so far paints him in an incredible light. He should absolutely be mentioned along with these other guys. I could actually vote for him sooner rather than later.

I'm going to echo you, and vote for Patrick Ewing. Trex made some wonderful posts on his defensive impact that were simplistic, but also made a lot of sense - that Knicks team was incredible defensively, and their excellence was specifically predicated on Ewing's (and a typical centre's) strengths. He's got a good case for a top 10 defensive career ever.

Offensively, I'm a bit lower on Ewing than some of the other posters here - he was a high volume player, and had a solid jump shot for a big, but his efficiency was seldom elite, and for a big with a poor assist/turnover ratio, the efficiency/spacing benefits generally have to be huge in order for him to make Ewing a large positive on offence. Not a negative or anything, but probably a small-to-moderate positive. I'm fairly sold on his defence though, and IMO, his impact is rather portable too. In fact, it could be even better with a stronger offensive team around him, IMO.

Honestly don't know who gets my second vote at this point in time. I feel like there are a lot of players that can be thrown in these slots and I'd be perfectly ok with it. It's a real grey area for me atm. Durant? Not confirming any vote here, but he's probably where I'm leaning. Pippen/Mutombo/Kidd/Frazier are all very interesting to me too. All very solid players on both ends (aside from Mutombo, who is not really much of a factor on offence, but whose defensive career is right there with anybody aside from Bill Russell IMO).

[LA Bird]

1. Patrick Ewing
A top 10 defensive player all time and the only one remaining who is not a negative on offense. Anchored some of the best regular season defenses post Russell and elite playoff defenses as well. Offense is not that great despite his point totals due to weak passing compared to some of the all time great centers and doesn't draw enough fouls to lift his scoring efficiency even when he was younger and more athletic. OTOH, the Knicks never really had a good offensive guard to pair with Ewing and he was a few shots away from winning the championship which probably would have bumped him into the top 20 legacy wise. He is sometimes labeled as a low impact star (see Ewing theory) but looked pretty good in ElGee's WOWY stats over his career (~4.5 SRS difference). Ewing is the best player available at this point even if he was a step below the best two-way centers in the top 15.

2. Scottie Pippen
Plenty of SFs coming up soon but I have Pippen at the top for probably one or two more years before Durant overtake him.

Sidenote: it is interesting to see Barry who finished #29 in the last project getting 0 votes at this point.

[Lou Fan]

FYI I say this all under the context that you seemed to dismiss Howard being over Ewing as if it were unthinkable. I'm not sure who I'd pick ultimately right now, but Howard over Ewing seems perfectly reasonable.

I do to some degree. I consider Dwight Howard to largely be a paper tiger compared to the great centers. A pretty boy with beach muscles but not the all around talent or grit of the true legend level centers. A modern invention worshipped by people who don't remember what the real centers used to look like. He had very little offensive ability. His TS% is a blatant distortion. A joke based on rolling to the hoop, alley oops, and offensive follows. You can't even compare him to guys like Ewing or Hakeem. You couldn't build an offense around him -- you put him in the middle of the offense. And he never had to play anybody the other way. He was a great help defender, but he would have been squished like a bug on Shaq's backside. There were few nightly wars for him. Maybe a handful against Yao when he was young, and Cousins when he was old. Otherwise he never had to face a massively productive center and got to just sit back there playing goalie while ignoring the Joakim Noahs and Timofey Mozgovs of the world being trotted out as centers during his prime.

Dwight being considered #2 in the MVP voting for one single year was a bit of good timing -- the whole Duncan/Nash/KG generation of former MVPs was aging out, and LeBron nuked himself and Wade with the Miami move -- and also again a question of optics. If Ewing puts in one of his prime Knicks years during that same year he'd have a great chance for similar consideration. But Patrick played in the centers' decade, and so he was always going to be capped as an MVP guy, because how could he be the MVP when he wasn't even the best guy at his own position? Dwight on the other hand other got to claim the "best center" title as a data point just by default.

This is all narrative driven. Provide evidence for your claim if you want anyone to agree with you.

[trex_8063]

FYI I say this all under the context that you seemed to dismiss Howard being over Ewing as if it were unthinkable. I'm not sure who I'd pick ultimately right now, but Howard over Ewing seems perfectly reasonable.

I do to some degree. I consider Dwight Howard to largely be a paper tiger compared to the great centers. A pretty boy with beach muscles but not the all around talent or grit of the true legend level centers. A modern invention worshipped by people who don't remember what the real centers used to look like. He had very little offensive ability. His TS% is a blatant distortion. A joke based on rolling to the hoop, alley oops, and offensive follows. You can't even compare him to guys like Ewing or Hakeem. You couldn't build an offense around him -- you put him in the middle of the offense. And he never had to play anybody the other way. He was a great help defender, but he would have been squished like a bug on Shaq's backside. There were few nightly wars for him. Maybe a handful against Yao when he was young, and Cousins when he was old. Otherwise he never had to face a massively productive center and got to just sit back there playing goalie while ignoring the Joakim Noahs and Timofey Mozgovs of the world being trotted out as centers during his prime.

I wanted to chime in here, quoting both.
I think Winsome Gerbil marginally overstates things (wrt to Ewing essentially pulling double-duty in guarding all-time great centers AND being responsible for help D/protecting the rim), or at least implies that's the case more often than it really was. There were a lot of all-time great centers in his time; but there were also a lot of teams trotting out the likes of post-injury Bill Cartwright, Michael Cage, Frank Brickowski, Danny Schayes, or similar too.

That said, I do feel Winsome Gerbil has a point, because he certainly had to face an offensive threat at the center more frequently: Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Daugherty, Mourning, Smits, even aging Parish was a better scorer than many of the centers Howard was facing, such as even peak Joakim Noah. Note that Hakeem and Robinson were the only ones not in the Eastern Conference with Ewing during Ewing's prime, too.

Who were the major scoring centers (or PF/C's) of Howard's prime? Yao Ming (early in Dwight's prime), Cousins (only at the tail-end of Dwight's prime), Amare Stoudemire, Tim Duncan, Pau Gasol. Note that ALL of them were almost exclusively in the opposite conference from Dwight during portions of their primes that overlap.
So he certainly would have had more opportunity to just give token attention to his own man, and otherwise "play goalie" as WG indicated.

However, there are more outside shots in Howard's era, which one could argue would marginalize a big's defensive impact somewhat. So I'm not sure how to figure that in as a counter-measure. otoh, smart coaches like SVG orchestrate their defense cleverly, essentially overplay outside shots, knowing that Dwight's got their back if they then get beat off the dribble, so.......

Who led the better defenses? Ewing anchored THREE #1 defenses to Howard's ONE (iirc). Ewing anchored TWO defenses that were significantly better than the best defense Howard anchored. In opp eFG% and DREB%, the '09 thru '11 Magic ranked: 1st and 2nd, 1st and 1st, and 4th and 1st, respectively.
Those two great Knicks defenses that Ewing anchored were 1st and 1st both years.
otoh, Ewing had more help on the defensive end; so all other things being equal, he SHOULD have a better team result, right?


So idk where that leaves us on the defensive comparison. Both were fantastic defensive anchors. By eye-test, I kinda like peak Ewing marginally better (pnr defense, keeping blocks in play being the primary reasons). The one separating factor I will note is that Dwight has maybe 6-8 seasons as a good/great defensive anchor, whereas Ewing shows every indication of being a solid defensive presence for a MINIMUM of 10 years (and perhaps more like 12-14).
Longevity again is the primary distinguishing factor between these two.

Offensively, I think Winsome Gerbil underrates Dwight's offensive potential, simply because he doesn't have great iso scoring skills. He's an all-time great level finisher, though, all-time great level at putting foul-pressure on the opposing defenses, too. And in an era predicated on lots of pnr's, being an elite roll-man has its value too.
Not saying this makes him better (or necessarily even equal) to Ewing on offense. But I don't agree that you can't build around him (seeing as that's exactly what Orlando did). I would agree it somewhat limits as far as WHAT TYPE of effective offensive line-up you can build around him, but that's about as far as I'd go.
He's not a great offensive player, but he was pretty good in his prime.

[pandrade83]

Vote 1 - Patrick Ewing

Vote 2 - Scottie Pippen

I’m just going to address some of the themes (for the lack of a better word) that revolved around ewing during his career.

He came up in one of the best eras for centers the game has ever seen. There are the obvious all time greats such as hakeem, robinson, and towards the later part of his career shaq. Then you had his georgetown counterparts in mutombo and mourning as well as guys like parish, divac, willis, smits, sabonis, daugherty, etc. On top of competing with these guys for accolades like all NBA and all defensive team, he had the tall task of being the focal point on offense going up against them on a regular basis.

And that leads me to the story of ewing’s career: He never had a consistent all star caliber 2nd option in his prime. The knicks were essentially forced to run the offense through him as he was their only option. Starks was a talented player who would go to war for you, but for every few games he went off, you’d end up with a shot happy poor shooting night. Many times, the knicks would end up winning these games in spite of that due to ewing’s stellar play.

Was Ewing a hyper efficient elite offensive player? Not quite, but he would turn into a great offensive force with impressive athleticism for a guy his size. As his athleticism waned, he developed more of an outside game, and while his efficiency would decrease, you could still go to him late in games if you needed a bucket. You can also attribute his decrease in efficiency in the playoffs to defenses locking in even more on him due to the lack of other options.

I’m sorry, but the notion that he actually brought his teammates down offensively to the point where they would’ve had a significantly greater impact without him is irrational. If ewing was ever fortunate enough to play with another great player, he would’ve taken advantage of it just fine. When he finally got the opportunity to play for a championship in 94, he just so happened to face his ultimate match in hakeem. By no means am I guaranteeing a championship if he faced the likes of barkley, stockton and malone, or david robinson, but the outcome may have been different.

Ewing and the knicks played jordan’s bulls as well as anyone back then, but just couldn’t get over the hump. While teams from other eras certainly prevented players from winning championships, jordan had a major effect on those guys from the 90s. Those knicks teams were built on defense, and while there’s no question ewing had great defensive players around him, he was the anchor nonetheless. NY’s defensive RTG ranks from 92-99:

92 - 2nd
93 - 1st
94 - 1st
95 - 1st
96 - 4th
97 - 2nd
98 - 4th
99 - 4th

Top 5 defense for 8 straight seasons and best in the league for 3 straight? That’s damn impressive any way you slice it. 92 was riley’s first year as head coach, and he found a way to manage all these strong personalities (mason, oakley, mcdaniel, starks, harper, etc.) and help them channel that towards performance on the court.

Where I struggle with the last part of your argument is that I still think Oakley was the heart of that defense. Sure Ewing was the better player, but I honestly think Oakley was an Isiah Thomas like personality for that team. I wasn't a knicks fan and it was the dark days of cable tv, so am I wrong? Was ewing really a locker room hero? To me it was Oakley's heart and soul that made that defense, and Ewing was just the "talent" if you will.

I don't buy that era was a super era for centers either. A super era for centers with long careers perhaps, but centers dominated the game from the 50's on till about now. Ewing being this high moves him past guys like Reed, Cowens, McAdoo, Walton, and Unseld who were all MVP level centers. Cowens, Reed, and Unseld all played together, and all won MVP's but I'm supposed to move Ewing over all of them?

The MVP's from 65-79

Russell, Wilt, Unseld, Reed, Kareem, Cowens, McAdoo, Walton, and Moses. That was THE center era, so the argument that centers were better in the 90's seems false. The question is if you think the 90's as a whole were the best decade by a mile. I've asked this over the Ewing fans, but I don't think I've gotten a direct answer. If you think the 90's were just by far the best era, then that's a reasonable case for Ewing. All be it, I think your second pick Pippen had a far better career, the rest of your argument for Ewing at last seems reasonable for him over Pippen.

True but you seem to be focusing on overrepresentation of 90s players, when I feel it's the lack of 70s players that's really alarming. I don't know what to do with it because their cases don't seem that strong, but it's hard to believe it represents only 2 of the top 30 players in history

1) I think way too many teams between the NBA/ABA dilutes accomplishments in some people's minds. In '74 for instance you have 17 NBA Teams + another 10 ABA Teams & a lot of people accept the ABA as comparable to the NBA at that point. Post merger, we wouldn't see that until 1990 - and by that time not only had the league's popularity soared but some of the best players were starting to be born off foreign soil too.

2) Drugs derailed some guys who had the potential to be getting voted in around this slot.

3) This era had more bad luck with injuries limiting some potentially great players than the next one. Archibald & Walton certainly are a couple that come to mind but primes ended suddenly and quickly too - Frazier & Cowens come to mind.

4) '84-'93 can be easily seen as one of the golden eras for the league - at least from a narrative standpoint; and I think we're in the middle of one now.

Ultimately not all eras are created equal and that's OK. I definitely take league strength into account when making my votes.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #79 (27 votes---don't think we're going to get more----requiring 14 for solid majority):

Patrick Ewing - 11 (2klegend, Bad Gatorade, Clyde Frazier, Dr Positivity, Doctor MJ, drza, Hornet Mania, LABird,
micahclay, trex_8063, Winsome Gerbil)
Kevin Durant - 6 (scabbarista, penbeast0, pandrade83, dhsilv2, CodeBreaker, andrewww)
Stephen Curry - 3 (janmagn, oldschooled, twolves97)
Elgin Baylor -2 (Outside, Pablo Novi)
Scottie Pippen - 1 (RCM88x)
Clyde Drexler - 1 (JordansBulls)
Artis Gilmore - 1 (Narigo)
Isiah Thomas -1 (JoeMalburg)
Bob Cousy - 1 (euroleague)

No majority, so all of the bottom five are eliminated. Two become ghost votes (were for Havlicek and Kidd). Otherwise one vote transfers to Durant, two to Ewing:

Ewing - 13
Durant - 7
Curry - 3
Baylor - 2

Baylor is next eliminated, but both become ghost votes (one for Havlicek, one for Cousy). Curry is next eliminated, but all three turn to ghost votes (secondary votes were for Pippen, Havlicek, and Baylor).
So we're left with Ewing (13) and Durant (7). Ewing is the default winner.

Will have the next thread up shortly.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.